The Linux Administration group is for the discussion of technical issues technical issues that arise during the administration of Linux systems, including maintaining the operating system and supporting end-user applications.

I have two obvious suggestions: set up a proxy server and establish an
enforceable company policy regarding unauthorized Internet use. You can ask any
one of a number of major corporate IT departments about what they've done about
that very same problem.

Most internet TV use port 80 like any other web content. Obviously blocking port 80 isn't a great idea.
Instead you need a content filter. Sonicwall, Barracuda, and others make appliances for this very thing.
You can also build your own using linux or try a linux distro made for firewall/proxy applications. Untangle is a good one.

Obviously, the problem tends to be porn video sites.
If a few senior executives of your company/organization are caught abusing the
company's IT assets and suspended or fired for their actions, it tends to focus
everyone in the company/organization on the problem; just ask the good folks at
X***x from about 5 to 10 years ago how that works.

dnew54 via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, the problem tends to be porn video sites.
> If a few senior executives of your company/organization are caught abusing the
> company's IT assets and suspended or fired for their actions, it tends to focus
> everyone in the company/organization on the problem; just ask the good folks at
> X***x from about 5 to 10 years ago how that works.
>
> D. Newberry (email@removed)

The proper solution is a defined company policy backed up with a proxy.

Hi,
If it is not porno let them live - to watch whatever they like.
Give them an assignment to make reviews of online videos in connection with their work or some specific tasks, and to present the results to their colleagues.

If it is porno put CCTV cameras and notices everywhere that the area is under video surveillance 24/7 and any misuse with internet access will be a ground for wage deduction without limits to overdraft.

Christo -- how do you justify this in view of need for productivity? There aren't a lot of positions where productivity is unaffected by distractions such as TV.

As previously mentioned -- start with Employment/IT Policy. If management is not willing to take a position on this, the IT department will just get in trouble at some point for "making" policy. When the Employment/IT Policy is distributed, install and enforce some kind of proxy solution.

Hi,
It depends on what you understand under productivity. Having broader view of the things and creative inference of higher level in some cases may save you a lot of costs of any kind (labour, design, maintenance, etc.)

Let me tell you a story.
In ancient Rome there were some Great Builders (having no time to read the Law of Archimedes in the library), for they were too busy with boosting productivity.
They 'knew' that the water will not flow 'upwards' and didn't waste too much their time ... as a result of which build 6000 km of (redundant) aquaducts of various height (up to 50-60 m) (for not knowing an elementary law of physics).
So what, at least the slave labor was free.

IT is not about micro managing employees or spying on their activities. IT is about getting the people the tools they need to do their job as well as maintaining and polishing those tools to work better.

Unfortunately many people work in companies with a 1950's mindset of process and report. I find that the better the work environment, the more work that gets done.

William -- "TV" can mean anything. If what is being watched is relevant to the business, Christo is spot-on. I worked in broadcast television for a while, and it was important to have people watching what other stations were airing for sales and content competition.

The point I was making is that management, not IT, needs to decide what people will be doing. IT can make suggestions (and in the case of watching video at desks, include relevant information to the decision like the cost of bandwidth), but it should not attempt to usurp the authority to decide corporate standards. In the case of "job content" (which writing reports on what they are watching would be) vs job "distraction", IT implements rather than making policy.

If you just want your employees not to watch internet tv at the work time, best thing is to use some proxy ( eg: squid ) and block the streaming video files. you can even block websites those providing these videos .

IT should have a management representative. That is my daily role. IT management (CIO, CTO, etc) should be helping shape company policy regarding internet usage since they are responsible for that segment of the business. You can choose to lock down internet usage, however you may be very well reducing productivity by doing so. Non work related casual surfing can increase productivity.
A smart business will take advantage of that and allow harmless surfing to continue. Perhaps a QoS solution is in order, but straight blocking of videos is IMO going a bit far.

The company you are in is obviously larger, William. Business segment and product is the driving force in much of this:

I will argue that, as a consumer (for the moment), I do not want a power plant allowing those monitoring systems watching internet TV.

As an employer (in another example), I don't want to pay overtime because employees did not complete tasks but, instead, watched TV.

Neither of these examples applies to all cases, but I consult to many smaller businesses and one of the issues recently was employees using their monitoring computers to watch Internet TV while performing manufacturing functions ... in this scenario, a serious safety hazard. When this was blocked but allowed in the break room (a seemingly reasonable compromise), the rise in unauthorized breaks hit productivity. Sadly, both had to be blocked because employees were not willing to use the resource responsibly.

I think the OP brings a question that is becoming a bigger issue every day, depending on the type of company involved. It is not only an IT issue, and that is why it is important to remember that ALL management needs to be involved (sometimes, with the access control we have, IT folks forget that CIO is not CEO in most companies).

christo-petkov via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> Hi, It depends on what you understand under productivity. Having
> broader view of the things and creative inference of higher level in
> some cases may save you a lot of costs of any kind (labour, design,
> maintenance, etc.)

This is simply BS. Create a company policy and enforce it, period.

>
> Let me tell you a story. In ancient Rome there were some Great
> Builders (having no time to read the Law of Archimedes in the
> library), for they were too busy with boosting productivity. They
> 'knew' that the water will not flow 'upwards' and didn't waste too
> much their time ... as a result of which build 6000 km of (redundant)
> aquaducts of various height (up to 50-60 m) (for not knowing an
> elementary law of physics). So what, at least the slave labor was
> free.

When you prohibit something to the people against their will they start thinking how to circumvent the prohibition, rather than reconcile with the management decisions 'of the seventh start magnitude' (and the recommendations of the best consultants in the region for any business and for all time).

BTW the streaming of video on Internet is the least problem of wasting time at the workplace. You can waste 99.99999 % of your time by simply playing sudoku, or laying solitaire or calculating horoscopes of any kind.

The problem is not in the video streaming - it is in the work hourly rates. People are paid for 'parking' at the workplace and they 'optimize their stay' there. (The optimal mathematical solution of this 'parking problem' is to take money against doing nothing - you have only to certify your stay).

A better solution is to pay the people for completed work rather than for time of stay at the workplace.

I fully agree. After all people are here at a workspace and not any whereabouts. IMHO it rather seems to be a management problem. People should have as much work to do as they can deal with during a normal work day. If people feel they are almost overcharged a little bit there is no time to watch TV at work or play games. But this is slightly OT.

To all responders: I don't mean to prey on employees or restore slavery. But as Christo said: people get payed for their work not for their mere presence.

tiburondelcaribe via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> Anything by force only works for a short period!

Thats ridiculous. The bottom line is, the computer and the time spent
on the computer is the companies, not the employees. People can talk
all they want about how productive people can be with regard to web
access. The bottom line is, there is a certain amount of control
required to run a business.

The solution is, proper defined company policy and enforcement of that
policy. I'm not saying block all internet access, but there is little
to gain by permitting employees access to internet tv. 99% of what is
on tv these days is junk and is not going to grow a person professionally.

99% of what is on tv these days is junk and is not going to grow a person professionally

It's not about growing them professionally. This is about business culture and productivity. Allowing a certain amount of freedom at work will increase your employees productivity. Also, the more freedom an employee perceives is available to them the more loyal they will be to your business.

Myself, I've moved away from the companies with corporate mentality. It's a control and power trip mindset with which I can't be bothered to participate. I'd rather get things done than play those petty games. Treat employees with respect and watch them build your company. Pay attention to work done and not to hours worked.

Who is better, the employee who stays late, never does personal business at work, and gets the job done or the employee who does the same amount of work in half the time and spends the rest watching internet TV? I would argue that the later is preferable. This person clearly has talent. Perhaps they need a raise and more duties. I question why I am paying overtime for the 'hard worker' who has excellent attendance but questionable talent value.

I definitely want the employee with skill and talent and I am aware of the fact that limiting their access and creating a culture of control if often the fastest way to loose that kind of talent. If you want quality people, build a quality environment in which to work. If you want drones, then work out rigid schedules, control access, monitor activity, and make the bottom line the end goal of your business.

OK, is a very good point.
But in some latitudes and countries, the best worker is who is and spend many time in the office.
This is valued like "buttock hours" by many company owners here in my country (Colombia).

Hopefully, in the near time "Pay attention to work done and not to hours worked."

You may be surprised that we still have this attitude (presence in office vs measure of work done) in many of our "modern"
workplaces :) Unfortunately, its not in just some latitudes and countries :) I like your style Dacree.

Hi,
Unfortunately it is not that easy.
This thing with hiring labor has a contradiction in essence.

The whole idea of hiring labor is designed to cheat the workers. With the time the system is so much elaborated that the workers start cheating their boss and their colleagues. Words fail me.

You hire a person and pay him, intending to use his labor (that will create some other value). You pay him money, but it is different money, not the one he is earning. With his money you will pay to somebody else and/or something else, and so on. The contradiction is that the money you pay for hiring somebody is not directly bound (if bound at all) to the money he/she is earning. This creates an opportunity for some people to get paid without earning the money at the expense of their colleagues. With the time some people step closer and closer to the cash flow and go far and far away from the labor and labor ethics.

The system reaches its final limit when some people attach directly to the cash flow by becoming fiduciaries of the boss, business consultants, financial experts and attach to some interests, and start feeding on shameless bonuses and other forms of parasitism.

A devastating effect on productivity at the company could have also some mistake in the management that may cause waste of labor and other resources. When the employees detect such a thing it acts as a weapon of mass destruction ... of the labor discipline.

Hmmmm ... IMHO, it's like the bathroom,coffee, whatever break. It's a necessity for us humans to
work more efficiently. Like you said, "people get paid to work". I don't believe that's being disputed (hopefully :)
... it's making that work more efficient/productive for everyone, especially the employer :)

I'm not at all surprised to hear that presence is rated more highly than performance in my locale. This is one of the reasons why so many of our competitors went under last year and why we are filling that void and getting their contracts.

Prohibiting things is not a panacea for management problems, no mater whether by company policy or by cutting the technical feasibility (without knowing what the consequences of this may be). Prohibition is an extreme measure to be applied in extreme cases with a great care.
Solving the problem without plugging the video streaming is a valid solution of the actual problem (waste of labor resources) and should be considered as such.
By cutting the video, the real causes of the problem still remain and will burst out in some other form (and when some people loose their best employees and remain with 'trusted' people that are not able to add two numbers in excel for 3 hours they will start understanding what it is all about)..
A contradiction in essence (in the mathematical logic, not in philosophy) means that the problems caused by this contradiction could not be resolved unless the entire thing (in this case hiring labor) is disintegrated in parts and assembled anew without the contradiction.

Hi,
It is not a (system) administration question - it is problem of the (human) management.
I personally don't see any problems with the Internet access. People may have video access at the workplace through iPads and wireless connection as well. You cannot prohibit the whole radio-frequency spectrum.
Actually everything is in the log records of the computer that may be used to improve the management rather than introducing medieval approaches at work.

If you put half the wage to depend on presence and the other part of the remuneration on work achievements without limitation you may forget about plugging the video streaming.
Regards

christo-petkov via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> Hi, It is not a (system) administration question - it is problem of
> the (human) management. I personally don't see any problems with the
> Internet access. People may have video access at the workplace
> through iPads and wireless connection as well. You cannot prohibit
> the whole radio-frequency spectrum. Actually everything is in the log
> records of the computer that may be used to improve the management
> rather than introducing medieval approaches at work.
>
> If you put half the wage to depend on presence and the other part of
> the remuneration on work achievements without limitation you may
> forget about plugging the video streaming. Regards

If my employer were to pay me 50% of my wage for simply being there, I'd
sleep the day through on site and then work a night job. :)

I wouldn't consider having a corporate IT assets usage policy and enforcing to
be from the "dark ages"; nor is having a policy about employees using whatever
devices at work which may be detrimental to the company's interests. I don't
think anybody was proposing "prohibiting" access to the RF spectrum; just *how*
it's used on company time and with company assets.

Don Newberry - not working for *any* company and with no vested interest in this
discussion thread.

Hi,
50% not for being there, but rather for job assignments that are hard to be estimated 'per piece' like for example testing of equipment, technical services, public relations, etc. Everything should be specified not in the company policy, but in the Job Description of the position concerned.

O.K. - enough is enough.

The idea was that blocking the video streaming IS NOT a solution of the problem for it fails the validation test. A solution of a pragmatic problem is valid if and only if it solves the problem under EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation.
The problem (to discontinue the vicious practices of wasting time at the workplace) has some interpretations, like video on iPads, horoscopes, online and offline games, casual entertainment of any kind, forex trading (in personal benefit), etc. that are irrelevant to the video streaming and break this solution on the validation test.
Hence blocking the video streaming IS NOT a solution of this pragmatic problem.

which kind of proxy server you are using.. please specify..
I would suggest you if you can by the proxy application then you can found
options there..
otherwise.. go for a squidGurad for linux.
you can control your internet access + bandwidth + content filtering..
for internet tv required bandwidth more then 75 kb or 100 kbps.
after that you can create delay pools by that you can control bandwidth
utilisation..
you just watch log from access.log and check which ip address is using
Internet TV.

And for more data you can go with this link.. you can block streming.. which
is basic requirement for internet TV.

O.K. let's have an example. You receive USD 2000 a month for 'presence' which includes: maintenance of the intra-corporate LAN, e-mail lists and some PR activities against the requirement to have at least 88 hours per month 'presence'. After completing this work you can work on projects.

You have been assigned a project of 10 parts x USD 1000 (works for about a week) and you will receive payments every time you complete a given part. There are also about 10 other projects waiting.

christo-petkov via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> Hi, 50% not for being there, but rather for job assignments that are
> hard to be estimated 'per piece' like for example testing of
> equipment, technical services, public relations, etc. Everything
> should be specified not in the company policy, but in the Job
> Description of the position concerned.
>
> O.K. - enough is enough.
>
> The idea was that blocking the video streaming IS NOT a solution of
> the problem for it fails the validation test. A solution of a
> pragmatic problem is valid if and only if it solves the problem under
> EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation.

When it comes to software, there is no solution that 'solves the problem
under EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation.

> The problem (to discontinue the
> vicious practices of wasting time at the workplace) has some
> interpretations, like video on iPads, horoscopes, online and offline
> games, casual entertainment of any kind, forex trading (in personal
> benefit), etc. that are irrelevant to the video streaming and break
> this solution on the validation test. Hence blocking the video
> streaming IS NOT a solution of this pragmatic problem.

There is no solution that will eliminate all you have stated. That
being said, I'd suggest, a solution that addresses a large portion of
the problem is much better then no solution at all.

If my employer were to pay me 50% of my wage for simply being there, I'd
sleep the day through on site and then work a night job. :)

The idea here is to discontinue employment for those unproductive workers. If one of my employees were to do what you are suggesting, they would not only loose their job but their last paycheck would be very slim.

Of course, being a 'boss' is important to some people. Maybe they just need to feel 'in charge' and above someone. In that case, the "Bottom line ... develop a company policy and enforce it" approach would probably be best for them.

@Christo
I definitely agree with you on this one. This is not a technical problem to be solved. This problem involves personnel management and company culture. For my part, I want that extra bump in productivity gained from allowing casual internet use. As such, I promote a culture were this is done responsibly and only by the productive employees. The problem with these ideas about writing a good policy is that once written, you need to follow that policy.

I'd rather handle the issue on a person by person basis. Productive people get more slack and free time. Those that struggle with their productivity are given very little wiggle room. This promotes an attitude of productivity among your employees. When there are monetary and leisure gains to be had from being more productive then you see an attitude shift away from a big brother attitude where employees are looking to get away with as little work as possible.

DACREE via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> @wanderedinn If my employer were to pay me 50% of my wage for simply
> being there, I'd sleep the day through on site and then work a night
> job. :)

The idea here is to discontinue employment for those
> unproductive workers. If one of my employees were to do what you are
> suggesting, they would not only loose their job but their last
> paycheck would be very slim.

Note the smiley? It was a joke. Folks it was a joke.

>
> Of course, being a 'boss' is important to some people. Maybe they
> just need to feel 'in charge' and above someone. In that case, the
> "Bottom line ... develop a company policy and enforce it" approach
> would probably be best for them.
>
> @Christo I definitely agree with you on this one. This is not a
> technical problem to be solved. This problem involves personnel
> management and company culture. For my part, I want that extra bump
> in productivity gained from allowing casual internet use. As such, I
> promote a culture were this is done responsibly and only by the
> productive employees. The problem with these ideas about writing a
> good policy is that once written, you need to follow that policy.
>
> I'd rather handle the issue on a person by person basis. Productive
> people get more slack and free time. Those that struggle with their
> productivity are given very little wiggle room. This promotes an
> attitude of productivity among your employees. When there are
> monetary and leisure gains to be had from being more productive then
> you see an attitude shift away from a big brother attitude where
> employees are looking to get away with as little work as possible.
>

Hi,
Some people are missing the main point, which is that hiring employees is time-related rather than work-related. The employees are much more interested in their time at work to expire and to get paid rather than doing something in-between.

Of course you can amend to some extend the things by company policies, job descriptions, and even direct manipulation of the employees, like for example imposing guilt (You mislead not only me but the team as well; With this productivity our profit will 'go South', and soon it will not be enough even for wages, etc)

A system that is working is 'on auto-pilot' and needs virtually little or no management.
Unfortunately hiring labor in the classic understanding is not exactly that case.

Hi,
There are some other forms of medieval interpretations of management based on manipulation by fear besides firing. Actually the threat of dismissal is not effective for management purposes because it is one-time act. A serious threat should be continuous, imminent, impressive, etc.
Like for example a counter of the kind 100.000000, which when switched on (by some access to inappropriate video streaming) will start a countdown (of the percentage factor by which the remuneration will be multiplied at the end of the month).
The sixth digit may be attached to the tenths of a second and virtually this is doing nothing in the first few minutes, but the rotation is spectacular.

There are a number of commercial products on the market to do such things. Their main advantage is that you select the category of the 'site' you want to block, eg gambling, porn, streaming video, etc, and they maintain and download daily and updated blacklist to your blocker.
Otherwise you need to trawl you logs and specify sites to block...and people will get around it anyway. The internet was designed to ensure that message get through via a variety of means.
BTW, even the commercial products will not stop people like me who tunnel out to maintain personal security for private communication.

RE: 'IT is not meant for making social rules'
... that don't work, but rather need additional management and regulation.

IT is not making the social rules (there are too much people, social and economic structures mixing up the mess).
IT finds out some contradiction in a formal model, announces that there is a contradiction in essence (which means that the model could not work without continuous external impact), and this means nothing to the 'chosen making the rules'.

When somebody says a contradiction, in the general case it is accepted as some 'brain chewing gum' in philosophy or something - nothing to worry about.

IT people are not obliged to do anything of the kind.
Actually the whole question of 'How can I block Internet TV' is a manipulation of class 'Choice without an option of choice'. The primary question 'Is blocking Internet TV a valid solution of the time waste at the workplace' is not considered at all. Only the secondary question of 'How' is considered.
It blackmails the IT community to answer the secondary question as if all have agreed on the destined solution of the primary question.
This thing with blocking the video streaming of Internet TV can be used for other purposes as well. IT people are not obliged to assist anything of the kind.

christo-petkov via linuxadmin-l wrote:
>
>
> IT people are not obliged to do anything of the kind. Actually the
> whole question of 'How can I block Internet TV' is a manipulation of
> class 'Choice without an option of choice'. The primary question 'Is
> blocking Internet TV a valid solution of the time waste at the
> workplace' is not considered at all. Only the secondary question of
> 'How' is considered. It blackmails the IT community to answer the
> secondary question as if all have agreed on the destined solution of
> the primary question. This thing with blocking the video streaming of
> Internet TV can be used for other purposes as well. IT people are not
> obliged to assist anything of the kind.

The IT staff is obligated to do as the company deems them to do, thus if
the company wants them to block internet TV, they might ought to get a
solution in place, otherwise find themselves looking for a job.

O.K. Let's drop it,
but there always appears somebody to keep it going
... and do you know why - because this does not solve the problem, and I start doubting whether this is the problem, or it is rather something else.

The real problem is the actual reason driving the employees to waste their time at the workplace. The watching of video is not the reason - it is the consequence.
I don't care about how companies solve this problem - it is an intra-corporate policy.

What I care about is that this thing can be used by some other people to suppress large communities and restrict access to information (on the grounds of non-labor, and even para-social relations), it can be used also for manipulations and for acquiring dishonest competitive advantages by whole regions, various castes in society, etc.
That is what the IT community is not obliged to participate in.
Regards

We may not be obliged, but we can be told(ordered) to do it. It is not a
matter of ethics on the IT side, it is a matter of ethics on the staff side.
Question is do you block it at the source(company firewall) or do you block
it at the destination(PC). Understand that streaming video takes much
bandwith. If several employees are also listening to Pandora radio on the
net, It can make for slow web service for those actually doing work. That in
itself is not fair to the company because not only are they not doing what
they are paid to do, they are also keeping others from being more
productive.

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong section. Much thanks to all who have endeavoured to help me solve some real life problem. I have been very surprised at the amount of verbiage this request has generated. To me it is simply a technical problem that has to be solved, not a philosophical issue on management or employee relation. IT department gets told to provide solutions, and that is what we do.
People have been advised, they have been told, they have been warned not to abuse the system. The issue dies down for a while, then surfaces again. It is not very easy to eradicate without some very strong arm tactics. We want to explore a technical solution rather than strong arm tactics.
Some of the technical contributions have been noted and currently being explored. Additional technical advice are welcomed. They too will be explored, and I shall post back the solution that works for us.